Allowed

Vijay Kumar Rajpoot v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Sept 2024CRMP/2398/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners had developed and sold a colony without municipal permission, prompting an FIR under Sections 292/292-C of the Municipal Corporation Act. The court held Section 396 bars cognizance except on complaint by authorised officers, followed the Bhanwar Lal Parekh decision, quashed the FIR, allowed respondent No.4 to lodge a proper complaint, and directed disciplinary action against the Sub-En

What did the court decide?

FIR dated 11.03.2023 (Crime No. 0117/2023) against petitioners quashed; complainant permitted to lodge complaint per law; action directed against official who lodged FIR.

Vijay Kumar Rajpoot Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Municipal and Town Planning | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 5

2024:CGHC:34246-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 2398 of 2024

¶6

Vijay Kumar Rajpoot S/o Late Mohan Lal Rajpoot Aged About 39 Years (Aadhar No.- 677300607211 ) R/o House No. 338 Ward No. 26 Chakradhar Nagar Sindhi Colony Beladula Road Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶7

Hemalata Rajput D/o Late Mohan Lal Rajpoot Aged About 29 Years (Aadhar No. - 384050292105) R/o House No. 338 Ward No. 26 Chakradhar Nagar Sindhi Colony Beladula Road Raigarh District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶8

Seema @ Priya Manuja ( Wrongly Mentioned As Seema) D/o Late Mohan Lal Rajpoot Aged About 40 Years (Aadhar No. 733770944954) R/o Gujarati Pada Near Hanuman Mandir Jharsuguda (Odisha ) Pin – 768201

¶9

Lalit Kumar Rajpoot (Wrongly Mentioned As Lalita S/o Late Mohan Lal Rajpoot Aged About 45 Years (Aadhar No. -307323524819 R/o House No. 338 Ward No. 26 Chakradhar Nagar Sindhi Colony Beladula Road Raigarh District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶10

Bihari Lal Rajput S/o Late Rewachand Rajput ( Wrongly Mentioned As Rewachand Aged About 51 Years R/o Kaserpara Chakradhar Nagar Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.)

... Petitioners

versus

2 / 5

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶15

The Station House Officer Police Station - Chakradharnagar District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶16

Nagar Palik Nigam Raigarh Through The Municipal Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶17

Shri Nityanand Upadhyay S/o Late Bhagwandeen Upadhyay Aged About 59 Years At Relevant Time Posted As Executive Engineer / Building Officer Municipal Corporation Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) Complainant ( In His Official Capacity )

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

For Petitioners : Shri Hari Agrawal along with Shri Prashant Dansena, Advocates For Respondent/State : Shri Shailendra Sharma, P.L. For Respondent No. 3 : Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

Per Ramesh Sinha, (Chief Justice)

¶24

04.09.2024

¶25

Heard Mr. Hari Agrawal and Mr. Prashant Dansena, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for state/respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3.

¶26

The present petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the petitioners for quashment of the FIR dated 11.03.2023 bearing crime No. 0117/2023 registered at Police Station-

¶27

3 / 5

¶28

Chakradharnagar, District Raigarh (C.G.) against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 292, 292-C(2) & (3) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1956’).

¶29

The brief facts of the case is that over Kh. No. 54 area 2.13 Hectares situated at Patwari Halka no. 30, R.N.M.- Boirdadar, Raigarh, a colony by name of Swastik Vihar is situated. Further, the said original khasra no., after partition was recorded as Khasra no. 54/1/ka/1 in the name of Petitioners no. 1 to 4 herein and Khasra no. 54/1/ka/2 came to recorded in the name of Petitioner No. 5 herein. it was further stated in the written report that prior to year 2017, the aforesaid entire land has been sold in 127 small plots to different persons for residential purpose. Further, the petitioners have neither taken any permission of colony development from the office of Respondent No.3 nor from the office of Town and Country Planning, as such, the petitioner has violated the provisions of Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act and Rules framed therein, thereby committing an offence punishable under Sections 292, 292-C(2) and 3 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that for the offence punishable under Section 292 (C) of the Act, 1956, an FIR cannot be lodged rather the procedure for prosecution has been prescribed under Section 396 of the Act, 1956 which provides that no cognizance can be taken of any offence under Act, 1956 except on a complaint made by the officers prescribed therein.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent

¶32

4 / 5

¶33

No. 3 would oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶34

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition.

¶35

Section 396 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 says as under:-

¶36

“396. Procedure in prosecution- No Magistrate shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act or under any rule or bye-law made thereunder, except on a complaint signed by the Commissioner or by any Municipal Officer or the officer-in-charge of a police Station authorized by the Commissioner in this behalf either generally in regard to all such offences or particularly in regard to specific offences or offences of a special class.”

¶37

From a bare reading of Section 396 of the Act, 1956, it appears that FIR is not maintainable as it would be without jurisdiction. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ appeal No. 46/2015 in the matter of Bhanwar Lal Parakh v. State of Chhattisgarh, decided on 29.04.2015, while dealing with the similar issue held in para 10 as under:-

¶38

“10. The aforesaid discussion leads us to the conclusion that in view of the provisions of Section 396 of the Act, the FIR is held to be not maintainable in the law being without jurisdiction. The prosecution of the Appellant contrary to the procedure provided under the law is held to be illegal. Consequently the F.I.R. is quashed.”

¶39

Taking into consideration the facts of the case in the light of the judgment rendered in Bhanwar Lal Parekh (supra) by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, we are inclined to allow this petition, consequently the instant petition is allowed and the FIR dated

¶40

5 / 5

¶41

11.03.2023 bearing Crime No. 0117/2023 registered at Police Station Police Station- Chakradharnagar, District Raigarh (C.G.) against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 292, 292-C(2) & (3) of the Act, 1956 on a complaint made by respondent No. 4 is hereby quashed.

¶42

However, the respondent No. 4 is at liberty to lodge complaint against the petitioners as per provisions of law, if so advised.

¶43

The respondent No. 3/Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh shall ensure that no such laxity and irresponsible act on the part of the Municipal Corporation should come before this Court again in future and appropriate action should be taken against the person who has lodged an FIR in the instant case, who is stated to be Sub-Engineer of the concerned Municipal Corporation, in accordance with law.

¶44

Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a certified copy of this order to respondent No. 3/Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh for information and necessary compliance forthwith.

¶45

Sd/- Sd/-

¶46

(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶47

Amardeep/Shoaib

Vijay Kumar Rajpoot v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Rajpoot v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharamchand Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Harshlata Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukundram @ Mukunda Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Parasnath Rajavade Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vimal Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh